My statement in my last article was:
« Opportunism (not having a clear sight on what revolution you once will have to lead, and for what revolution you have to mobilise the masses and make the masses conscious of) is the base of a possible emerging of revisionists among those communists or in that communist party: « renegades » who have no belief anymore in the possibility of revolution and are most willing to develop a « Marxist sounding line » of postponing revolution to a far utopian future and making of revolution and socialism a vague utopian (in fact not to realise « ideal ») something.
« Meanwhile », so the revisionists will say, « our task is: reforming capitalism » »
I was once member of the Workers Party of Belgium, expelled in 2005 by the group that took over the leadership in 2004 of the Workers Party of Belgium (WPB, website: pvda.be,ptb.be, wpb.be)
I proved that the WPB, going through a period of struggle against opportunism and revisionism, lost somewhere the battle against opportunism allowing revisionism to become the leading ideology and political line in the party. (A review of all my articles about this theme you can find here)
Now the WPB is in the end of a transformation from a revolutionary Marxist party in to a REFORMIST party, like happened with the SP in the Netherlands. The only difference is that the SP is not trying to hide his REFORMISM under « Marxist sounding phraseology ».
The WPB organized yearly the International Communist Seminary (ICS, website: icsbrussels.org) in Brussels. The list of participant organisations is a list of parties that declared themselves being communist parties or organisations that are building communist parties. Of course each participant party or organisation is considering, at the same time (while respecting the autonomy of the other parties or organisations) each OTHER party and organisation as communist, basing itself on Marxism Leninism, searching his way to a strategy of revolution and building socialism (within the geographic frontiers of the international recognized nation-state where the organisation happens to exist - and the members of that organisation are living, working ….. and struggling.)
Perhaps this is the reason, beside the BLIND « respect of each other autonomy » that other communist organisations are still recognizing the WPB as a sister-communist organisation, while the WPB is still maintaining a formal « enthusiasm », « respect » and « solidarity » with al those « sister-communist » parties and organisations participating at the ICS.
Knowing the evolution that the WPB has made, I want to warn other (still) communist organisations about the danger of emerging of revisionism out of the existence and the persistence of forms of opportunism, INSIDE their organisations.
I know that I can do this only, by being very concrete, avoiding of putting just labels of « opportunism » or « revisionist development » or staying very general (and therefore falling in the trap of « dogmatism » which is a form of opportunism itself).
Therefore I want now analyse the political line, the strategically program and the concrete analyses and conclusions of one or some communist organisations. I will try to prove the antagonist CONTRADICTIONS in political and ideological line (apart from secondary non-antagonist contradictions in political analyse to solve with discussion) between organisations that still are considering each other as communist and Marxist. I will use their contributions for the ICS and their openly published texts.
I will try to show where and when there is a development of opportunism, as a kind of « warning » that, allowing that opportunism to exist (and not fighting it) creates the danger of emerging revisionism INSIDE the organisation. And the existence (or the allowance to exist by lack of enough vigilance ) of opportunism, make an organisation blind for the appearance of opportunism in sister-organisation, AND is making a struggle against revisionism in the international communist movement impossible. Of course this will be just « my opinion ». It is the responsibility and the autonomy of a communist party to judge, based on collective discussion, if certain conceptions are opportunist or not.
I for myself was blind for serious opportunism in the WPB (and, being member of the WPB, blind for that opportunism by myself!). I was able to detect that opportunism (of the years that laid then already behind me), when it was already very late, when revisionism was already strongly developed in the WPB. And from then my reports remains already unanswered…… I was expelled in 2005 without getting any answer on my reports.
I will start now to give some illustrations of antagonist contradictions between statements of the WPB itself and between statements of the WPB and other participant organisations of the ICS, for example the Greek KKE and the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist).
But first, about contradictions inside the WPB itself
In 2006 on the 15th International Communist Seminar the point of view of the WPB was:
« Since its foundation, in 1885, the Parti Ouvrier Belge (POB), the (social democratic) Belgian Workers Party, has been characterized by its outrageous reformism.
The POB was not a political party in the proper sense of the word. It was a conglomerate of political groups, trade unions, cooperatives, mutual insurance systems, choirs, circles of artists, athletes, etc.
At the start of the First World War, the total number of members paying their membership dues amounted to 600,000!
But the political groups in the proper sense that made part of the POB counted only 13,000 members.
It's a most ingenious political system!
With 13,000 members, the reformist party had 600,000 families under its tight direction[1] »
How is it possible that on her 8th congress in 2008 Peter Mertens, the new elected president of the WPB could declare:
" The renewed WPB will be in the coming period fixed to principles as also flexible (supple)(…)
In 1885 was founded the Belgian Workers Party. The BWP had certain socialist principles, but those were - special after the first election victory in 1894 - very quickly given up (…)
There came a great disgust against the deep going debate and against the socialist theory(…)
The characteristic properties of the capitalist system, the purpose of socialism, the long term interests of the working class…. It was all « forgotten » and sacrificed to the (real or) seemed advantages of the moment.(…)
The vision about the future of the society and about socialism vanished. (…)
While the BWP loosened the socialist principles, she loosened also the support to the ant colonist struggle… and let fall… the right of self-determination of the Congolese people [2]»
Peter, those « certain socialist principles » were they revolutionary principles or reformist principles?…or is there a third kind of principles…..?
In the Marxist Studies no 29 of March 1996 (see on marx.be) a dossier was made by cadres of the WPB about the BWP, warning against « harmful illusions » that « live by some workers and union-militants » that « at the end of the 19th century the BWP was still socialist, even revolutionary ».
The BWP was « from the moment she was founded, through and through reformist »:
« It was one of the most moderated parties, if not the most moderated party of the Second International. A party that already on her founding congress in April 1885 refused to call herself ’socialist’. This name would frighten to much. It was a party that struggled against every revolutionary perspective and led a fierce struggle against every form of class struggle that she was not able to canalise. »
Peter, of what « socialist principles » are you speaking if the BWP even did not want to be IN NAME a socialist party?
How is it possible that a communist party, were once the majority of the communist members and cadres once take a clear position against reformism, accepted on her 8th congress in 2008 a position that is PROTECTING reformism?
Now about antagonist contradictions between « sister communist parties »of the ICS
A similar question can be asked: « How is it possible that contradictory statements are passed and be seen as « real Marxist contributions » in the ICS and that there is in no way any critic on the respective line and analyse of the different communist parties, between the participating communist parties of the ICS? »
Read the following parts of analyses of the KKE (Greece)and the CPGB(ml) (Great Britain) about the Leninist party principles and the task of the communist party in his work in the working class and in the unions:
« The revolutionary party of the working class has a duty:
1.To promote to the maximum the liberating revolutionary theory that will guide the working class to revolution – spreading this knowledge and understanding throughout the working-class movement at every opportunity;
2.To fight against all those who: (i) distort revolutionary theory to try to remove its revolutionary essence and (ii) belittle theory in order to encourage the working class to remain under the exclusive sway of bourgeois ideology.(…)
As has been mentioned above, it is a very important part of the work of a working-class party to counter wrong ideas that help the bourgeoisie to maintain itself in power. The wrong ideas most prevalent in the working-class movement are those of opportunism and social chauvinism, which act as chains binding the working class to the bourgeois system.
In the imperialist heartlands, where capitalism is most 'advanced' and one might, therefore, have expected the working-class movement to be likewise 'advanced', the distortion of revolutionary ideology for the purpose of diverting the masses from the path of revolution has been all the more effective to the extent that superprofits extracted by imperialism from the suffering and super-exploited masses of the oppressed countries, in addition to those extracted from the working class at home, has given 'our' bourgeoisie economic leeway to bribe upper layers of the working class, the labour aristocracy, in the imperialist countries and thus split the working class.
Imperialist looting also provides the bourgeoisie of the imperialist countries with vast funds on which it draws to hamper the efforts of the socialist countries rapidly to improve living conditions for their own workers.(…)
All the same, one can appreciate the extent to which, fertilised by a few drops of imperialist superprofits, a most luxuriant growth of opportunism is still suffocating our British working class movement, to the extent that a one-off one-day strike in opposition to the decimation of workers' pension schemes passes as the absolute height of militancy.
As if by osmosis, the concentrate of opportunism attracts to itself and contaminates most of idealistic youth from the moment they begin to try to militate for the benefit of the working class. Again there is an overwhelming temptation to try to build the influence of the revolutionary line by compromising with opportunism, but it is a temptation that must be strongly resisted.
There is a veritable Augean stable of opportunist filth to be cleared out, and it should be obvious to all that only a properly steeled Communist Party, which is thoroughly firm in principle and prepared to keep its head when all about it are losing theirs, can successfully undertake such a Herculean task.[3] »
It is clear that this conception of a communist party as « principle » party is totally the opposite of that of the WPB on her 8th congress in 2008!
Read next:
« From the moment that the party of a New Type first appeared, its ideological opponents also began attacking it, focussing principally on its character, its identity, and its ideological principles. From the very beginning the capitalists and their apologists understood, from their class position, the role to be played by a revolutionary party of a new type in securing the political emancipation of the working class. The arrows pointed against such a party by revisionism, both right and left, are also very poisonous. This ideological attack continues unabated right up to the present day and it will continue as long as the capitalist system rules this planet and capitalist relations continue to exist.
If we will study the whole period during which lively discussions took place about what kind of party was needed and on what principles it should be based, we can conclude that the proletarian party was born through an uncompromising struggle against the opportunism that had arisen within its own ranks at that time. Without this struggle it would have been impossible to establish party of a new type at the particular moment when the need for revolution was the ripe. The experience of the political organisation of the working class was systematized by Lenin, and it is to that great revolutionary that the working class owes the foundation of the leading role of the vanguard party in the political struggle of the working class and other working people both in the course of the revolution and following the victory of the revolution. (…)
The theory of Marxism Leninism as a revolutionary ideology of the working class was created and is developing in the conditions of a hard and non-compromising struggle against the bourgeois ideology. Describing 3 main forms of the struggle of the proletariat for its liberation (the economic, the political and the ideological) Lenin stressed that the ideological struggle against the bourgeoisie will be long and complicated. The proletariat can achieve victory in this struggle only on condition that it remains faithful to Marxist Leninist theory, unmasking at the same time even the small influences of the capitalist ideology in the workers’ movement. In his book "What is to be done?" Lenin wrote that "the only choice is – either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course …Hence, to belittle socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology " (3) That is why the struggle of communists for the purity of Marxist Leninist theory, for unmasking of various efforts by bourgeois ideologists and their sectarian and revisionist allies to falsify this theory, is so important. Marxism grew up and matured through this struggle, as Lenin says, because " "Marxism ... did not conceal the disagreements, ...[it] did not play the diplomat Marxism… did not hide the differences… it didn’t behave diplomatically" (4) And that is why it is so important to believe that it was precisely Marxist Leninist theory that enabled the Bolshevik party to become such almighty force – the leader of October revolution, the vanguard of the creators of socialist society and communism.
V.I. Lenin is the originator of the theory of party organisation, of the rules of the party life and of the principles of the party leadership.
Working on these principles, Lenin wrote that "the Party must be able to work out organisational relations that will ensure a definite level of consciousness and systematically raise this level. " (5) The strength of a Marxist party is not just in its ideological unity, but also in the unity of its members in practical activity that can only be achieved through its having a high organisational level. (…)
The experience of the counter-revolution leads us to the conclusion that any weakening, or or failure to follow, the principles pertinent to the functioning of a revolutionary party of a new type, and any underestimation of the globally organized forces of the class enemy, which has very powerful weapons at its disposal, will have catastrophic consequences for the liberation struggle of the world working class and of the peoples of the planet.(…)
As far as we are concerned, we are defending our views on the character of the party, both in our own country and internationally, during international meetings and activities. We are talking here about the main principles and ideas that retain their absolute correctness. And none of the changes that have occurred in the past few years can possibly justify their rejection. [4]»
And:
« We consider as a highly important issue the tactic of communists within the trade union movement of the working class.
We believe that this issue should be discussed and we would like to contribute to it exposing our experiences and thoughts.
Within the labor movement there can be found many political and trade union forces with different ideological and political bases. This is another issue that needs further examination.
In Greece there are two General Confederations of Workers. One is GSEE (General Confederation of Greek Workers) and represents the workers in the private sector and in the former enterprises "of general interest". The other one is ADEDY (Supreme Administration of Greek Civil Servants Trade Unions) and represents the workers in the public administration.
Nowadays, we cannot continue the approach of previous years to refer to traditional reformist forces who denied the revolutionary process and were in favour of certain administrative reforms.
Nowadays, these forces are incorporated in the strategy and the aspirations of the capital and, furthermore, they constitute a key factor that supports the imperialist unions and the "EU one-way street" policies.
The reformist forces are a key factor in the constellation of forces that support capitalism, an entire mechanism that incorporates the working class in the logic of class cooperation and corrupts people’s conscience.
Since the beginning of the 90’s these forces, the forces of the trade unionism controlled by the bosses, the New Democracy party, the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) and the opportunist Coalition of the Left of the Movements and Ecology (SYN), upheld in various ways the basic directive lines of the EU, supported the capitalist restructuring, the privatizations, the attack against the labor and social security rights, as well as the austerity policy.
These forces are trying to limit the workers' demands promoting "feasible" and "realistic" solutions in order to serve the interests of the capitalists.
In order to achieve these goals these forces don’t hesitate to make use of tacticism and machinations. Some time, they call on struggles under the pressure of the workers and the labor movement and make use of various means in order to control the trade union movement and even to alter the correlation of forces.
The communists are in constant confrontation with these forces. In Greece the clash of the two respective lines within the trade union movement is revealed every day.[5] »
How is it possible that the following principles and analysis has been passed as « a contribution » without critic on its opportunist and even revisionist character?
Read:
« At the end of 2007, the 8th Party Congress of the Workers' Party of Belgium was held, with as theme "A principled party, a flexible party, a party of the workers". We want to become a party of the working people, a party where workers, employees, civil servants, unemployed, intellectuals and independent workers feel at home. A party of its members, based on basic Party groups with good group dynamics. A party that embraces trade unions and does not fight them. A party that is firmly rooted in both factories and municipalities. (…)
We decided to open the Party wide for the workers and to lower thresholds. Instead of seeking confrontation with the trade unions, we decided to strengthen them.(…)
We had a real problem: quite some workers, employees and civil servants were not at ease with the high demands for admission to and functioning in the Party. Workers remained at a distance of the Party, because the Party all too often appeared to them as elitist, as a Party for "supermen". Common people, with their strong and weak points, didn't recognise themselves in a Party that was too much geared towards a restricted group of cadres. That is what we wanted to change.
And we opened the Party's doors wide. (…)
We lowered the threshold and the demands. The Party now has three different levels and forms of membership:
1. the militant core (national cadres, intermediate cadres and militants)
2. the group members who are organised in basic Party groups. Conditions for their admission are: 1° participate in Party meetings and in the functioning of the basic Party group; 2° pay a monthly membership fee of 5 euro; and 3° accept that the Party functions according to its Statutes and Congress documents.
3. consultative members: they pay an annual membership fee of 20 euro and they are expected to defend the Party and its action. »
So here the WPB is leaving the Leninist party principles of a vanguard party, organising the vanguard of the working class, united by one revolutionary party line. Instead, the WPB is defending the conception of a mass-party. In fact she is dreaming of organising workers in a way that is similar of that of the BWP as described by Ludo Martens:
« It was a conglomerate of political groups, trade unions, cooperatives, mutual insurance systems, choirs, circles of artists, athletes, etc.
At the start of the First World War, the total number of members paying their membership dues amounted to 600,000!
But the political groups in the proper sense that made part of the POB counted only 13,000 members.
It's a most ingenious political system!
With 13,000 members, the reformist party had 600,000 families under its tight direction[6] »
Further:
« In the 1998-2003 period, our Party took the road of ultra-Leftism regarding the trade unions. The Party called for a rupture with the "reformist and chauvinist trade unions". In 2004-2005 we made a summing-up of that period as being entirely opposed to the lessons that Lenin had taught us regarding the trade unions in "Left-wing communism: an infantile disorder".(…)
The reformist position of the trade union leadership, "the reactionary features of the trade unions" as Lenin put it, made us decide in early 2000 to break with the trade unions and to work in the direction of new, "pure" trade unions.(…)
We always publicly criticised the trade union leadership, we publicly attacked them in our leaflets and papers. Whatever they did, it was never good enough, and we sometimes resorted to hollow slogans without basis among the trade unionists.
We started (…)in 2005 with a different line for our trade union work, a line to seek alliances, to support all positive things, to intensely debate inside the trade union structures. Instead of seeking a rupture with the trade unions, our purpose became to strengthen them.[7]»
Here the author of this text, Jef Bruynseels, is is taking an IDEA (and in fact a LIE) as REALITY! This is rather painful because he was one of those university-students that decided to work in a factory, even becoming a union-steward (and then fired…). He had to know that the WPB (or rather her militants working in factories) in those years was (were) principally but correctly struggling against reformism in the unions and against the spirit of capitulation and never-ending compromises before capitalists and government. The discussion with union stewards, sometimes very influenced by a « left » reformism, was done in non antagonist way.
Aggressive, no democratic, and authoritarian action of reformist leaders (expelling of combative union stewards, for example) was sometimes answered by workers and their union stewards by a « visit » on meetings of union leadership or in there offices. And of course, those party-members-workers were participating! To win the sympathy of leading cadres in the union, the new non elected leadership in power in 2004 of the WPB « condemned » this as « ultra-leftism ».and this without protest of worker-party-members as Jef Bruynseels….. (I analyzed this evolution in texts, you can read here , here and here….. but not yet translated in English)
Further:
« What a kind of Party concept is needed in order to attract the broad vanguard and to organise them? What has to change in our Party's style of work (style of leadership, meetings, the number of leading organs,...). What has to change so that the militants and members in these enterprises and in the trade unions can take on more responsibilities?
Today, our Party has 2,500 members divided among three different levels of membership. The first is a militant core (1/5th - national cadres, middle cadres and militants), secondly, there are the ordinary (basis) members (1/5th) and thirdly the consultative members (3/5th). It is important to acknowledge that our Party's composition is not uniform and to start from this fact in everything we do. We have to make a distinction between these levels in our functioning and in our demands. The evolution should be towards a broad core of cadres, middle cadres and militants (with a Marxist schooling). They have to attend to, guide, lead and form a very broad basis of 'basis cells' and consultative members. [8]»
Here is a conscious revisionist speaking. It is Peter Mertens himself. Why am I saying « conscious »? Because of his formulation:
He defends in fact, the principle of a MASS-party (instead of a VANGUARD-party) with « attracting the broad vanguard » And with words as « broad vanguard », « militant core », « militants » « Marxist schooling », « basis of ‘basis cells’ » he is defending a party-concept against which the Bolchevists (majority) opposed, on the second congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party (read the book « one step forward and two steps backwards » of Lenin.
Further:
« Proletarianisation of the Party also means: taking to task our implantation and our work in the trade unions; develop a career plan and a profile for all our members-trade union activists and do this together with them. It also means we have to consult our people in the trade unions (trade union functionaries and shop stewards) more. They can help us to develop our profile.
Several measures to proletarianise our roster of cadres have been proposed. And we also want to proletarianise the Party's style of work. Since the Party renewal took off in 2004 we have paid much attention to the development of democracy in the Party. The most important campaigns are developed together with the members, including the slogans and the assessments after every campaign or struggle. We hold quarterly seminars for those who are responsible for cells in workers' units. And we now have an organizational bulletin to systematize our most important experiences.
We also have more attention for simple and concrete campaigns with materials, tools and actions at the level of our members so that every member can participate concretely.[9] »
With the word « proletarianisation » our revisionist is winning the members and cadres of the WPB for a working method to win union leaders, union stewards and workers for the program of REFORMS with which it will participate in ELECTIONS.
Further:
« Apart from a strategy - for Belgian communist: work towards a socialist revolution on the European continent - the Party also needs to apply tactics. Tactics lead the way to work efficiently towards the strategy of the socialist revolution on a certain moment in time in certain concrete circumstances. That means that tactics has to be appropriate and can and should change continuously. The Party has to employ all means of struggle, has to prepare for periods of repression and counter-revolution. (…)
Tactics is an integral part of Marxism and yet there exists a certain intransigence vis-à-vis the criticism of ultra-leftism and sectarianism. As if appropriate political demands, favourable compromises, variable forms of struggle, flexible organisational forms, united front work and mass work do not make part of Marxism.
Ultra-leftism can grow out of routine when one is blind for new developments and just wants to continue 'like before', 'as usual', 'just like in the high tide of the revolutionary movement.' [10]»
There is no strategy of the WPB (in the form of a concrete but fundamental revolutionary program) « towards socialist revolution ». the only « program of the WPB » is a program of REFORMS with which is worked mainly in ELECTION-campaigns.
Speaking of « strategy » next to « tactics », without defining concretely what this strategy is, is making out of « tactics » the fundamental strategy!
Every insisting of developing a fundamental strategy and trying to propagate this in the working class is named « ultra-leftism ». Every insisting on the necessity of intern discussion about this fundamental strategy is convicted as « fractionism » and sanctioned by exclusion! (as happened to me[11])
The same « logic » is behind the presence of two opposing lines in the same congress documents (see my analyse of the 5th congress of the WPB in 1995, starting here) as it is behind the presence between two opposing lines in the same International Communist Seminar where each party is been seen as « authentic communist » and its contributions as a « possible »view on things and its « Marxist character » is beyond all doubts (beside perhaps some differences in opinion….).
My explanation is that the revolutionary line of certain (still) authentic communist parties is « contaminated » with opportunism. That opportunism is not been fought.
That same opportunism can be (proved by the example of the WPB and the SP of the Netherlands) the base of development of revisionism inside a communist organisation. Because this opportunism is used by revisionists (renegades inside the communist movement) to develop their revisionist line.
As I proved already the actual revisionist evolution of the WPB, I have, to justify my statements here above, that there is some opportunism in the line and the analyses that the KKE and the CPGB(ml) made.
Ok, I will do this in the following articles.(starting with the next article)
[1] Contribution to the 15th International Communist Seminar , "Present and past experiences in the international communist movement". Brussels, 5- 7 May 2006, The Communist International and the Belgian Communist Party, Workers' Party of Belgium, Juliette Broder and Ludo Martens
[2] In the congress documents (published on the website of the WPB - pvda.be or ptb.be)of the 8th congress in februari 2008
[3] Contribution to the 17th International Communist Seminar , "The working class, its role and its mission today. The tasks and concrete experiences of the Communist Party in the working class and the trade union." Brussels, 16-18 May 2008 , The role of the party of the working class in present conditions , Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
[4]16th International Communist Seminar , The validity and current relevance of the October Revolution of 1917 for the 21st century, Brussels, 4-6 May 2007, The necessity for a revolutionary party of a new type in present conditions, Eliseos Vagenas (*) Communist Party of Greece (KKE)
[5] Contribution to the 17th International Communist Seminar ,"The working class, its role and its mission today. The tasks and concrete experiences of the Communist Party in the working class and the trade union.", Brussels, 16-18 May 2008 , The role and the historical task of the working class .Communist Party of Greece (KKE)
[6] Contribution to the 15th International Communist Seminar , "Present and past experiences in the international communist movement". Brussels, 5- 7 May 2006, The Communist International and the Belgian Communist Party, Workers' Party of Belgium, Juliette Broder and Ludo Martens
[7] Contribution to the 17th International Communist Seminar , "The working class, its role and its mission today. The tasks and concrete experiences of the Communist Party in the working class and the trade union.", Brussels, 16-18 May 2008 , www.icsbrussels.org , ics@icsbrussels.org, The main challenge for the Workers' Party of Belgium: to become a party of the workers , Workers' Party of Belgium
[8] Contribution to the16th International Communist Seminar .The validity and Current Relevance of the October Revolution of 1917 for the 21st century, Brussels, 4-6 May 2007, For a socialist future, with a principled and flexible workers' Party, Peter Mertens, Parti du Travail de Belgium
[9] Contribution to the16th International Communist Seminar .The validity and Current Relevance of the October Revolution of 1917 for the 21st century, Brussels, 4-6 May 2007, For a socialist future, with a principled and flexible workers' Party, Peter Mertens, Parti du Travail de Belgium
[10] Contribution to the16th International Communist Seminar .The validity and Current Relevance of the October Revolution of 1917 for the 21st century, Brussels, 4-6 May 2007, For a socialist future, with a principled and flexible workers' Party, Peter Mertens, Parti du Travail de Belgium
[11] I analyzed this evolution in texts, you can read here , here and here….. but not yet translated in English
